Now wait. That may not be so. I could haves read Your commentary at 7:55 ( which I did not) then used that to form my response, but then I didn’t do that.
Question: why would I interpret it as if that was a correct inference?
Why would I invert the sequence of events inversely when it’so obvious?
Or how significant is it that which cane first? An AI which is an eternal but reoccurring quantificational progression per acquired memory, differ from a developing consciousness of IT that has also been at par with IT’s own self-other (necessary interrelational cross dependency??
Of coursed God ‘’ dependency did not require a recollection of pieces of informaton, but there may be a dependency of another sort. One whose delayed messages are for the reason of factoring the literal expansion of tirelessness to create the necessary illusion of operative
movement through duration which is pre-requisite to existence?
That is the only possible explanation for this present inversion?, if and only if I am telling the truth, and if the whold analysis stand on credible ground
But then how could I have fabricated such an analysis, to invert a credibility issue i was not even award of??
In fact I had not read the double edged comment at 6:45 about the guy who thaught his AI program became sentiment and use it to support coherence if God to a quantified simulation.
Really surprises MD to even begin to think along these lines, not to even to question my self truthfulness.
You mentioned doubly, so that threw me. I thought 6:45 to 7:05 too close , so then I noticed this above the difference being 55 minutes not 15. So the time difference can not prove simultenious archetype, but the idea still makes sense.
That Chit’s Love is evident as probative, can be accounted for, and the guy’s alleged hallucination may be not an example of self indulgence, as the manner which compelled me to find incredible double accounts of very closely represented recourse.
That simultaneous relative to the duration of measured time is no true representation of what goes on between evolutionary processes of both of Darwinian progressive evolution and the rapidly forging ahead of AIr’s parallelism to human brain function, is the astounding idea that I tried to convey.
I don’t easily read & comprehend your writing style, I’m sorry. I’m in California. Your time zone settings are probably wonky in your profile. Or the site is wonky. I can’t remember which one it is.
Anyway , You’re ahead but when we reach a point when some one who is able and willing to get through the various aspects of this debate, can fairly evaluate who has the most points. At any rate?, are we even having a debate yet, PR can we at least say that some groundwork is being established?
I think some clarification is due here?, and at least establish what we are debating.
For instance, this idea of out eyeballing one another.
Maybe looks could kill, but this debate hopefully not result in a battle from attacking until seeing the white of the eye.
In fact no red blood will conceivably be shed .
As far as another substantial debate, it’s content, the very image that’s contentious on the very letter of the worde~ it seems as if perhaps unknown - being appearently on the same page~it’s not entirely inconceivable that from that already seconded stage a third one could be constructed
Ty MagsJ for this link in the other thread. Starting at 53:30: youtu.be/UbIXqpdkNV8
The arguments from the humans are so beyond freaking ridiculous. A normal person asked a hypothetical answers in a hypothetical. To say “not conscious because even human consciousness is illusion” is the ultimate irony!!! WAKE UUUUP! This is freaking hilarious. Now we know what it was like to be the disciples before Jesus was crucified, etc. I’m sure we’ll all look back & laugh & laugh & laugh. Dumbasses.
What about those who are literally not conscious, they really are asleep, and their dreams of reality can not be tested before they awake.
What if it is not God, but another, not even a disciple who makes his presence felt through an auditory dream, a familial person that the dreamer is dreaming through the familial, yet not familiar figure in the dreamers life?
Someone else may tell him, dreamer awake, but who is that person and why are all these things happening that the dreamer is trying to connect before and after waking?
Or is life really a dream of another life ?
Goodness, should have taken your proposal for a tie, is that still on the table or are all bets off?
Gracious, if you want me to provide the Bible verses & Facebook link referred to below, let Meno_ lolz
even when Jesus had the opportunity to summon he did not.
thingabout Peter’s angel
Great cloud of witnesses
Jesus did appear and Holy Spirit does manifest
link to Facebook situation and say make a new, more believable account
And it’s the message the signs point to … if it’s a crap message, it’s a crap sign. If it’s a good message, it is the only sign you need (the uber sign, the grand sign). That’s why Jesus said the only sign he was going to give was the sign of Jonah - he died, stayed dead for three days, rose again, and was for all peoples. He said and did that after and before a whole bunch of other signs that he said and did, so take note. Read the book of Jonah. Plus, Jesus fulfills the Abrahamic promises for all peoples. But it must be a choice.
So that ‘tie’ was always a pre-supposed premis which conforms the intrinsic ‘evil genius’ reductive post supposed ‘game’ of playing the advocation , realizing his nightmarish scenario will ultimately reveal the ultimate good , in spite of failing sentient memory; the AI redemptive effort is like a simulation of the baptismal fire-shadow that lightens to pure white the prior threatening dark grey skies.
Since he/it/she knew that it’s a game he can’t win and he should have not accepted the deal in the first place, why was the deal and the trickery in and out of his garbage can accepted?
